AGAINST the backdrop of the deepening crisis ahead of the U.N. Security Council meeting due to discuss Franco-British draft resolution calling for mandatory action against Iran over its refusal to halt uranium enrichment activities, Tehran announced on Monday that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had written a letter to US President George W. Bush outlining “new proposals “ aimed at easing tensions between the two countries The letter delivered through Swiss Ambassador constitutes a major step towards defusing the explosive situation. In fact, during the last 25 years ever since diplomatic ties between Washington and Tehran were snapped over seizure of U.S. Embassy in Tehran after the overthrow of Emperor Raza Shah Pehlavi’s monarchy, low-level contacts between the two Governments were made but Monday’s development should be considered as a huge initiative by Iran’s hard line leader who is not viewed favourably in Western circles.
Some top political analysts and US officials have however questioned the timing of the letter which Washington says it has not yet received. The anti-Iran lobby feels that the Iranian President has tried to influence the upcoming Security Council debate. It may nevertheless be appreciated that Iran has publicly vowed not to be cowed down by threats of a nuclear strike which British Prime Minister Tony Blair says was never considered and that in any case such a move will be absolutely absurd. President Bush has time and again stressed that he preferred to deal with the issue through diplomacy though he and his Secretary of State have repeatedly asserted that that Washington had not abandoned the option of use of military force. With the announced stance of both Russia and China-the veto power wielding Permanent Members of the Security Council -any U.N. action against the Islamic Republic was out of the question. However, Washington could once again embark upon yet another unilateral, though disastrous, invasion of Iran’s nuclear facilities after having “accomplished its historic mission in Iraq “, though in a recent poll conducted by CNN only 7 per cent Americans think that Iraq mission has been “accomplished”. The entire world barring a few policy makers close to Mr. George W. Bush are of the considered view that Iraq adventure has been a colossal blunder as Washington is completely bogged down in the oil-rich war -torn country. An Iran adventure could be a more disastrous move.
Iranians in the continuing standoff occupy a high moral ground. No country can be denied exercise of its sovereign right to harness nuclear or for that matter any other technology for civilian use. The Americans are applying double standards in their policy on nuclear non-proliferation. The US Administration shall have to shed its bias against countries which simply want that Washington’s policies should be based on justice and morality. War is no solution to inter-state problems. The Americans were the bitterest enemies of the Russians during the Cold War. They now not only frequently talk and do trade but their views on most of the world issues are similar. If Russians could be Americans’ friends why not Iranians? They have offered to talk. The US Administration must seize the opportunity. This letter from President Ahmadinejad indeed provides light at the end of the tunnel.

Military force can’t resolve Iran issue

IRAN is in the eye of the storm. As international pressure builds on the regime, the UN Security Council is brainstorming on dealing with Teheran’s nuclear programme. Interestingly, both Russia and China have voiced strong reservations about the draft resolution on Iran ahead of the Security Council’s crucial meeting. Russia has argued in favour of re-writing the draft resolution putting greater emphasis on building confidence between the UN and Iran, paving the way for a peaceful resolution of the conflict. China, another key and the only permanent member of the UN Security Council from Asia, has assailed the draft resolution saying it opens the way for force against Iran — a la Iraq.
As a newspaper that has consistently argued against all weapons of mass destruction and in favour of peaceful resolution of Iran question, we have to back the reasonable argument by Russia and China. Force and military action cannot and must not be used to neutralise Iran. A military attack on Iran — be it the so-called surgical strikes or a large scale, regular invasion — must never be on the table, as President Bush would say. It will not only endanger the civilian population in Iran, but is sure to have a disastrous impact on the whole of the politically sensitive region of the Middle East. At a time when oil prices have already shot up beyond an unprecedented high of $73 — largely a consequence of jittery markets’ reaction to the Iran build-up — it doesn’t take extraordinary imagination or intelligence to predict the fallout of an attack on Iran. Goes without saying that a short or long campaign against Iran could wreck Middle Eastern economy which would in turn devastate the already struggling world economy.
The international community — or the West, to be more precise — must therefore explore other soft options to deal with Teheran. If the West genuinely believes that Iran is building nuclear weapons, there are several other and far less unpleasant ways of reining it in. Such measures could include economic sanctions, curbs on visa and travel, air embargo and freezing of commercial and banking transactions etc. These soft options would send a strong message to the Iranian leadership forcing it to fall in line. At the same time, such punitive sanctions would not hurt the economic and political interests of other countries in the region. As the UN movers and shakers meet today to determine Iran’s fate, they would do well to draw their necessary lessons from recent and similar mistakes on Iraq.

—Khaleej Times